Friday, May 09, 2014

Rep. Jim McGovern, shut the hell up (Trina)

At her site, Trina covers the economy and food primarily. She also grabs issues that have to do with her state so she has covered both RomneyCare and ObamaCare and various politicians. This week, she took a look at the lunacy of a remark by one US House Rep.

I am appalled. Jim McGovern is a House Rep. from MA and I know all his
garbage. We all know his garbage. All it's ever going to take is the
national press to nose around and then the little useless wimp will be
out of Congress.

Useless wimp?

He tries to talk a big game but he never accomplishes anything.

He can't even pull of a principled stand.

He is a disgrace.

And he's in the news today. BBC reports on former IRS official Lois Lerner being held in contempt by Congress and notes:

Wednesday, May 7, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's killing of
civilians in Falluja gets a little bit of attention, the US is back to
training the Iraqi military in Jordan, the VA scandals continue, Chelsea
Manning is prepared to sue for hormone therapy, Benghazi and much more.

Starting with veterans issues, US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of
the House Veterans Affairs Committee. His office issued the following:

Chairman Miller Responds to Calls for VA Leadership Changes

For more information, contact: Curt Cashour, (202) 225-3527

May 5, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Following the American Legion’s calls for VA leadership changes, Chairman Miller released the following statement:“Make no mistake. There is a crisis of confidence with VA’s top
leadership, and the American Legion’s calls for the resignations of the
department’s top leaders should be sending shock waves through the White
House. I have the utmost respect for Commander Dellinger’s opinion, and
while I am going to wait until VA’s inspector general releases its
report on the situation in Phoenix before deciding to call for any
personnel changes, this much is clear: for nearly a year, we have been
pleading with top department leaders and President Obama to take
immediate steps to stop the growing pattern of preventable veteran
deaths and hold accountable any and all VA employees who have allowed
patients to slip through the cracks. In response, we’ve received
disturbing silence from the White House and one excuse after another
from VA. Right now, President Obama and Sec. Shinseki are faced with a
stark choice: take immediate action to help us end the culture of
complacency that is engulfing the Veterans Health Administration and
compromising patient safety, or explain to the American people and
America’s veterans why we should tolerate the status quo.” – Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ AffairsRelatedChairman Miller letter to President ObamaMay 21, 2013

What scandal are we talking about this time? House Veterans Affairs
Committee Chair Jeff Miller explained it an April 9th Committee hearing.
From that day's snapshot:

US House Rep Jeff Miller: I had hoped that during this hearing, we
would be discussing the
concrete changes VA had made -- changes that would show beyond a doubt
that VA had placed the care our veterans receive first and that VA's
commitment to holding any employee who did not completely embody a
commitment to excellence through actions appropriate to the employee's
failure accountable. Instead, today we are faced with even with more
questions and ever
mounting evidence that despite the myriad of patient safety incidents
that have occurred at VA medical facilities in recent memory, the status
quo is still firmly entrenched at VA. On Monday -- shortly before this
public hearing -- VA provided evidence
that a total of twenty-three veterans have died due to delays in care
at VA medical facilities. Even with this latest disclosure as to where
the deaths occurred, our Committee still don't know when they may have
happened
beyond VA's stated "most likely between 2010 and 2012." These
particular deaths resulted primarily from delays in gastrointestinal
care. Information on other preventable deaths due to consult delays
remains unavailable. Outside of the VA's consult review, this
committee has reviewed at
least eighteen preventable deaths that occurred because of
mismanagement, improper infection control practices and a whole host -- a
whole host -- of other
maladies plaguing the VA health care system nationwide. Yet, the
department's stonewall has only grown higher and non-responsive. There
is no excuse for these incidents to have ever occurred. Congress has
met every resource request that VA has made and I guarantee
that if the department would have approached this committee at any time
to tell us that help was needed to ensure that veterans received the
care they required, every possible action would have been taken to
ensure that VA could adequately care for our veterans. This is the
third full committee hearing that I have held on patient safety and I
am going to save our VA witnesses a little bit of time this morning by
telling them what I don't want to hear. I don't want to hear the rote
repetition of -- and I quote -- "the department is committed to
providing
the highest quality care, which our veterans have earned and that they
deserve.
When incidents occur, we identify, mitigate, and prevent additional
risks. Prompt reviews prevent similar events in the future and hold
those persons accountable." Another thing I don’t want to hear is --
and, again, I quote from
numerous VA statements, including a recent press statement -- "while
any
adverse incident for a veteran within our care is one too many,"
preventable deaths represent a small fraction of the veterans who seek
care from VA every year. What our veterans have truly "earned and
deserve" is not more
platitudes and, yes, one adverse incident is indeed one too many. Look,
we
all recognize that no medical system is infallible no matter how high
the quality standards might be. But I think we all also recognize that
the VA health care system is unique because it has a unique, special
obligation
not only to its patients -- the men and women who honorably serve our
nation in uniform -- but also to the hard-working taxpayers of the
United States of America.

DAV remains deeply concerned about allegations of secret waiting
lists, falsification of medical appointment records and the destruction
of official documents at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care
facilities in Phoenix, Arizona and Fort Collins, Colorado.DAV is first and foremost concerned about the health and safety of
the 9 million enrolled veterans who rely on the VA for some or all of
their health care needs, including most of our 1.2 million members.Veterans are a unique population with special needs; and it is
vitally important that a safe, high-quality and accessible VA health
care system be sustained to deliver such care.At a time of such serious allegations it is imperative that the VA
respond quickly, forcefully and publicly to these reports and answer
questions about whether similar problems are threatening other VA
facilities or the system as a whole.Veterans have a right to know that they can receive quality medical care in a timely manner when they come to VA.I am calling on VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to answer not just the
public allegations but also some fundamental questions about the entire
VA health care system.The Secretary must quickly, comprehensively and publicly answer a
number of questions that are necessary to give us, all veterans and the
American public confidence that the VA health care system can and will
provide safe, high-quality care at every facility in the nation.

VA and its leadership at all levels must be held fully accountable
for any failures or wrongdoing that may have occurred or be occurring.
America’s heroes deserve nothing less.

Arlington, Va.­– Concerned Veterans for America today released a new web video, “Demand Accountability,” as part of its ongoing VA Accountability project,
which calls for reform of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and
supports the VA Management Accountability Act—a bill that gives the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs the power to hold managers accountable for
their performance—both positively and negatively.“Demand Accountability,” which focuses on the VA healthcare system’s
culture of dysfunction, highlights the recent news that 40 vets’ deaths
have been linked to long wait times for care at the Phoenix VA and
points out the large cash bonuses VA administrators around the country
received even after overseeing hospitals where severe mismanagement
exposed veterans to health risks and in some cases even led to their
deaths. The video also calls on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to
support the VA Management Accountability Act.

“Just yesterday The American Legion called
for the resignation of the Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary
Eric Shinseki—action we fully support and called for at CVA a year ago.
But replacing Shinseki won’t actually lead to reform unless the next VA
secretary is empowered to hold managers and administrators accountable
for their poor performance. That’s why the VA Management Accountability
Act is so important; it equips VA leaders with the tools necessary for
meaningful reform.”

For more information, contact Emily Laird at 571.302.0973 or email elaird@cv4a.org.

###

Concerned Veterans for America is a
non-partisan, non-profit, 501(c)(4) organization that advocates for
policies that will preserve the freedom and liberty we and our families
so proudly fought and sacrificed to defend.

He said the secret list might have been a secret to the Veteran's
Administration, but everyone on the Phoenix campus knew about it.Burmesch, who worked as a medical support assistant from November
2012 to September 2013, said most support staff just didn't know exactly
how the list was being used.

*A third​ and fourth whistleblower at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System provided more details of the “secret list” allegedly
used by managers to make it appear that wait times for veterans were
shorter than they actually were. At least 40 veterans died while waiting
for care in Phoenix, according to whistleblowers. Three top managers in
Phoenix have been placed on leave while the VA’s inspector general
investigates.

*A VA scheduling clerk accused higher-ups in Austin,
Texas, and San Antonio of manipulating data in an attempt to hide long
wait times to see doctors there, the Austin American-Statesman reported on
Wednesday. The employee told the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which
protects government whistleblowers, that he and others were “verbally
directed by lead clerks, supervisors, and during training” to ensure
that wait times at the Austin VA Outpatient Clinic and the North Central
Federal Clinic in San Antonio were “as close to zero days as possible,"
according to the newspaper.

Adam Klasfeld (Courthouse News) reports
on Chelsea Manning who, having won the battle to change her name now is
pursuing hormone therapy while she serves her 35 year sentence in a
military prison.

The story publicly begins Monday April 5,
2010, WikiLeaks released
military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were
killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and
Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7,
2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley
Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel
(Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had
been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The
first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring
classified information to his personal computer between November and May and
adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second
comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of
classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud
(Los Angeles Times) reported
that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one
that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty
if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of
this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced
that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has
yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was
postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a
record of his actual actions. Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland,
with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a
traitor." February 28th, Bradley admitted he leaked to WikiLeaks. And why.

Bradley Manning: In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and
counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and
killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding
cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and
third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I
believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had
access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A
tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military
and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq
and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of
time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate
the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and
counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the
people living in the effected environment everyday.

For truth telling, Brad was punished by the man who fears truth:
Barack Obama. A fraud, a fake, a 'brand,' anything but genuine, Barack
is all marketing, all facade and, for that reason, must attack each and
every whistle-blower. David Delmar (Digital Journal) points out, "President Obama, while ostensibly a liberal advocate
of transparency and openness in government, and of the 'courage' and
'patriotism' of whistleblowers who engage in conscientious leaks of
classified information, is in reality something very different: a
vindictive opponent of the free press willing to target journalists for
doing their job and exposing government secrets to the public."

Tuesday, July 30th,
Bradley was convicted of all but two counts by Colonel Denise Lind, the
military judge in his court-martial. Susan Manning is Brad's mother. Nic North (Daily Mail) quotes
her stating, "Never give up hope, son. I know I may never see you
again, but I know you will be free one day. I pray it is soon. I love
you, Bradley, and I always will." His aunt Sharon Staples states, "If
anyone was going to get themselves arrested for leaking hundreds of
thousands of secret documents and end up jail for it, it was going to be
our Bradley. He just seemed to have a burning sense of wanting to
right any injustice from such a young age." August 21st, Bradley was given a lengthy prison sentence. Following the verdict, Manning issued a press release
which included, "I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female." She is
appealing her conviction. Now Chelsea is seeking hormone therapy.
Klasfeld notes, "Manning has offered to pay for her treatment to avoid
litigation, and a
media-generated controversy, even though an increasing number of federal
and appellate courts have affirmed that she is entitled to get such
care for free."

Iraq has become a family secret, the hideously malformed child hidden
away in the attic, whose presence is only acknowledged on rare and
awkward occasions. In the UK this is particularly true with the Chilcot
Inquiry, ongoing since 2009, testing the patience of the prime minister
as to when it will reveal its findings. Iraq’s state of permanent chaos,
of market bombings and assassinations, has turned it into a toxic issue
which politicians avoid, one which bores the public and which the media
struggles to contain into a coherent narrative.

Along with having elected Members of Parliament, there is the hope that
this time (third time's the charm?), Iraqis might elect their own prime
minister. In 2006, the Bully Boy Bush administration imposed
know-nothing Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister (when the pick of Iraqis
was Ibrahim al-Jafaari) and, in 2010, when Nouri's State of Law lost to
Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya, the Barack Obama administration imposed Nouri for
a second term (the US brokered The Erbil Agreement -- a legal contract
which circumvented the will of the people, the Iraqi Constitution and
basic concepts of democracy -- what a proud moment for Barack). The Economist sees the scramble for the post of prime minister as a scramble for Shi'ite alliances:Many Shia voters in Iraq still look to the Marjaya, the
establishment of senior religious scholars in the holy city of Najaf, to
give them guidance when casting their ballots. Mr Maliki has brought
the security and intelligence services under his control, has eroded the
power of parliament and replaced military commanders with people loyal
to him. But he has been less successful in creating unity among his
fellow Shias—the overwhelming concern of the Marjaya. During
the campaign Ali al-Sistani, the 83-year-old grand ayatollah whose
influence was pre-eminent in the early years after the American
invasion, was silent, but other prominent clergymen in Najaf, including
one of Mr Sistani’s closest confidants, called for change. “Every Friday
[when they give sermons] they have been bashing the government for not
delivering services, accusing them of corruption and for lacking
principles and good governance,” says Bakhtiar Amin, a human-rights
minister in Iraq’s first government after the American invasion of 2003.
“The question is how much the Shias are following their spiritual
leaders.”

The real competition is between incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
and his rivals, namely Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites who believe he will
not serve for a third time. There are secondary rivalries between pious
Shiites and secularists and between moderate Sunnis and
radicals/insurgents.The Shiites are split three ways between
al-Maliki's State of Law Coalition, Muqtada al-Sadr's Sadrist movement
and the Citizen Coalition of Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim's Islamic
Supreme Council of Iraq.The Sunnis in turn are split between
parliamentary speaker Osama al-Nujaifi's Muttahidoon list and Deputy
Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq's al-Arabiya list. Given this political
split, no single bloc is expected to win a majority in the new
parliament.

Alsumaria reports
today that MP Hussein al-Sharifi is stating that a fine for Mahmoud
Hassan would not be justice since the State of Law MP was extorting and
threatening Iraqi people, specifically those in the slums of Baghdad,
that this is recorded on video and that this was broadcast on television
so a fine is not enough.

He gave his weekly speech today. Alsumaria notes he used it to savage the Parliament and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi as he insisted that they accomplished nothing.

Nouri al-Maliki will have completed his second term in one month and
seven days and he will have done so without ever finding three
individuals to head the security ministries -- his entire term he has
had, for example, no Minister of Defense. For four years, Iraq's been
without a Minister of Defense -- as violence has increased. He's in no
position to call anyone else a failure.

In fairness to Nouri, he is accomplishing something currently --
increasing his number of War Crimes. As he continues to use collective
punishment (legally defined by the United Nations and the United States
as a War Crime) on the civilians of Falluja, he kills and he wounds. Alsumaria reports
that today's assault on Falluja's residential neighborhoods by Nouri's
military bombings left 7 civilians dead and forty-five injured. Suleiman al-Qubeisi (Anadaolu Agency) reports on another shelling today which left 9 dead and numerous people injured -- the nine dead included 2 children. AFP notes today, "Security forces have
periodically clashed with insurgents in areas around Fallujah, but the
main source of casualties in the city has been persistent shellfire that
has especially targeted southern neighbourhoods." Erin Evers (Human Rights Watch) puts a human face on these civilians killed by military shelling:

His call yesterday was not the usual update. He told me that his oldest
brother, Ammar, who had also fled Fallujah, recently returned to the
city with his wife and daughter when they ran out of money and food.
Yesterday, two days after arriving, a mortar strike killed him. He was
riding his bike to buy groceries, his brother told me. [. . .]

Explaining that the US government is back to training the Iraqi military in Jordan, Missy Ryan (Reuters) notes, "Washington's
response to surging violence and sectarian tensions in Iraq has been
limited by a reluctance to further empower Maliki, who critics say has
bullied opponents, and a desire to ensure that U.S. soldiers do not
become embroiled again in a Middle Eastern conflict."

Monday, Aswat al-Iraq noted
the Kurds were insisting that holding the presidency of Iraq was
actually a "right." It's not. It's been a custom. There's nothing in
the Iraqi Constitution that guarantees the president will be a Kurd.
(Only that he or she will be an Iraqi citizen by birth, born of Iraqi
parents.)

The current Iraqi president is Jalal Talabani. The president in self-exile. December 2012, Jalal
Talabani suffered a stroke. The incident took place late on December
17, 2012 following Jalal's argument with Iraq's prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki (see the December 18, 2012 snapshot). Jalal was admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital. Thursday, December 20, 2012,
he was moved to Germany. He remains in Germany currently. Per the
Constitution, he should have been relieved of his duties by February 1,
2013. He's not performing his duties and he hasn't been. This does not
help the Kurds make a case but they are trying to.

Massoud Barzani is the KRG President (and he's back in Iraq after his visit to Jordan). Barzani heads the Kurdistan Democratic
Party and NINA notes
that they are saying that a Kurd must be president and quotes KDP
member Abdul Salam Berwari stating, "The entitlement of the presidency
is exclusive for Kurds will not renounce it in any way." The Patriotic
Union of Kurdistan is headed by Jalal. Alsumaria reports that PUK member Burhan Faraj states that the Kurds are discussing now who should be president.

From yesterday's snapshot:Aswat al-Iraq reports,
"The Kurdish Union Party nominated today the special physician of
President Jalal Talabani and the Governor of Kirkuk to assume Iraqi
presidency office": Dr. Najm al-Deen Kareem.The who did what?The Kurdish Union Party. A minor player in the KRG (and one that's been
angling cabinet positions in the KRG's government). The two dominant
parties in the KRG now are the KDP and Goran. I don't see why they
would back a minor party -- especially one closely associated with the
PUK -- Jalal Talabani's party.

The PUK nominated Kirkuk governor and Talabani’s personal physician, Najmeddine Karim. Meanwhile,
the Movement for Change (Gorran) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party
(KDP) have remained silent, at least until the election results are
final.Kamal Raouf, a political analyst and author, told Al-Monitor, "The
two parties that remained silent are waiting for the election’s
results," adding, "Karim is not an acceptable candidate for Barzani’s
KDP." Raouf said, "The debate over the presidency of the republic between
the Kurdish parties will be limited to the PUK and the Movement for
Change," pronouncing it likely that "the [next] president will be a
member of the PUK.""The figures who can be accepted by everyone include Barham Salih,
who previously served as prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional
Government, and Adnan Mufti, a leader of the PUK," he said.

al-Jaffal also notes that the Sunnis are expressing interest in the post
with some saying it should go to Speaker of Parliament Osama
al-Nujaifi.

Meanwhile, it's been noted that US Ambassador Beecroft has issued no
statement on the elections. (They took place April 30th so, no, his
April 23rd a week before the elections does not count.)

Reuters notes today, "The Obama administration plans to nominate its ambassador in Iraq to be
the new U.S. envoy in Cairo, U.S. officials said on Wednesday, as
U.S.-Egyptian ties remain strained following the Egyptian army's ouster
of an elected president last year." Dropping back to the April 23rd snapshot:

On the topic of Stephen Beecroft, Laura Rozen (Backchannel) reports the word is Beecroft will be nominated to be the US Ambassador to Egypt shortly.That would be a deeply stupid move. So it's probably going to happen.
If it does, we'll go into how stupid it is. Until then, we'll just
note the rumor.

I didn't doubt Laura Rozen, she has strong sources in the State Dept. I
don't doubt Reuters but we'll wait for a real statement and then we'll
go into how stupid this is. (We also don't have space or time today for
this topic.)

Moving over to the topic of Benghazi. Four Americans were killed there
September 11, 2012: Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and US
Ambassador Chris Stevens. Congress is pulling together a select
committee to investigate. US House Rep Trey Gowdy has been named to
head it.

Charlie Rose: So tell me how you see this? Is a new select
committee necessary? Why did you accept the Speaker's invitation?
[Speaker of the House John Boehner.] What do you think you can
accomplish?US House Rep Trey Gowdy: I think it's necessary, Charlie, because if
you consider the three different categories with respect to Benghazi,
number one, why was the facility not secure leading up to 9-11-2012
during the siege itself? Did we have assets able to respond? And if
not, why not with the significance of that date? And thirdly, was the
government honest with the citizenry in the aftermath with respect to
the explanation? I'm sure the Speaker picked me in part because I used
to be a prosecutor. That would be my guess. I'm-I'm much more
interested in-in pursuing the facts than I am political theater. And I
think it can be done that way. I hope my Democratic colleagues
will-will participate in the select committee. Many of them are former
prosecutors or former attorneys who ask very good questions. I had a
guy who stopped me in the airport today just-just at Reagan I was coming
to the Capitol. He said I'm a former military guy and I want you to
get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. Now I have no idea what
his politics are. He may have no politics. But that's a pretty common
refrain -- at least back in South Caroline and as I travel people still
think that there are unanswered questions. Charlie Rose: But it seems to me -- and you can correct me or not --
and I'm asking this as a question, it's really driven by Republicans
have this belief and they have not been dissuaded that somehow the White
House in a political campaign year has not been forthcoming and you
question exactly why there was some confusion about the nature of the
attack? That, in the end, that's the issue?US House Rep Trey Gowdy: I think that you can certainly fashion an
argument that that's the most important of three issues because that
gets at whether or not people can trust or rely upon what government
tells 'em. And it's difficult, Charlie, to go back to 2012. But if you
and I can go back there in our minds, we're in the throes of a general
election and one of the narratives is that al Qaeda is on the run, Osama
bin Laden is dead, GM is alive. I think that Ben Rhodes memo was
probably the straw that broke the camel's back because that memo made it
really clear that we're going to blame an internet video and not a
broader policy failure in Libya. Charlie, I'm an old DA. If-if you
really think it was the video, then site me all the evidence. That's
the mantra that we hear, that 'We used the best evidence that we had at
the time, that there wasn't an intent to deceive, we were just
mistaken.' Think back to the five Susan Rice talking shows. Well then
give me all the evidence that buttressed what you said at the time
because there is none. Charlie Rose: Well, so you don't believe anybody from the CIA who
says, 'You know, at the earliest beginnings, we were not sure. We, in
Washington at the CIA, were not sure exactly what was going on. We
later, you know, looked at all the evidence but that was our state of
mind.' You don't believe that? US House Rep Trey Gowdy: No. No. I cannot tell you what someone's
state of mind was. What I can tell you is that on September the 12th
[2012], there was an e-mail from Beth Jones kind of memoralizing a
conversation she had with the Libyan Ambassador. And she was very clear
-- this was Ansar Al Sharia. This was an extremist organization. With
respect to Mr. Morrell. every change he made to the talking points, in
my judgment, sanitized them -- to go from the word "terrorist" to
"extremist," to go from the word "attack" to "demonstration." And most
significantly, take out any reference of the prior episodes of violence
in Libya because -- and his own testimony was -- he didn't want to
embarrass the State Dept. I'm not interested in embarrassing or not
embarrassing anyone. I think it is fair to ask, given on that date what
had been happening in Libya prior to that, why were we caught so
flat-footed by what turned out not to be a protest but an organized
attack on our facility?Charlie Rose: Is it -- Listen to what Mike Morrell said to me on
this program in a conversation about him and the CIA but also about
Benghazi. Here it is, you can hear it.Archived Mike Morrell: In the entire process that I talked about,
the White House suggested three changes. Three changes. All of them
were editorial. None of them were substantive. So the White House had
no substantive input into the talking points. There have been
allegations, Charlie, that the White House wrote the talking points.
There have been allegations that --Archived Charlie Rose: That's what they mean by cooking the books --Archived Mike Morrell: Cooking the books. Archived Charlie Rose: -- is the expression used.Archived Mike Morrell: There-there have been allegations that the
White House made significant changes to the talking points, that's not
true. There have been allegations that the White House told me to make
changes to the talking points, not true. None of that's true. None of
it.Charlie Rose: So when you listen to Mike Morrell, former Deputy
Director of the CIA and acting director say that, what do you think?US House Rep Trey Gowdy: Well the first question I would ask Mr.
Morrell is then where did Susan Rice come up with her video narrative?
Because even the CIA was not pushing that narrative. If you'll think
back to Mr. Morrell's testimony before Intel just last month, he said he
was shocked when she said on the five Sunday morning talk shows that
this was a spontaneous reaction to a video because his intel, his
information was, 'Wait a minute no one was telling us that this was
related to the video.' Hillary Clinton said it was related to the video.
The president condemned the video. So I cannot tell you what Mr.
Morell believed on September 12, [2012]. I can tell you this: Someone
changed the talking points and they changed them in a light most
calculated to sanitize them and cast the administration in the best
light. Is there a benign explanation for that? Of course, there could
be.Charlie Rose: Okay.US House Rep Trey Gowdy: Is there a more nefarious explanation? Of course, there could be.

Despite the sneers of MSNBC hosts and the disdainful manner of White
House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Benghazi matters. And it matters in
ways we don't yet even understand -- deep, fractious ways that reveal a
major front in the culture war almost no one seems to understand or want
to even talk about:[. . .]No one who has been in the military would ever say, "What difference .
. . does it make?" as Hillary Clinton did of the details of Benghazi.No one who has been in the military -- especially in battle -- would
ever think for one second it was OK not to try something, no matter how
desperate, to get aid to the Americans in the Benghazi compound.But for those who did not serve, such responses seem perfectly OK.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.